Ben Clemence, Annotation #3
October 13, 2011
Blue Gold
Word Count: 1116
Title: Blue Gold Director: Sam Bozzo Released: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that the amount of fresh water on the planet is decreasing but at the same time the global demand is increasing. This is due to things like population growth, larger industry, landscapes not designed for water conservation, and pollution. The other issue brought out is the control that large corporations have over the water supply. In some cases corporations have bought the rights to all the water in certain countries. They make water so expensive through meters and other means that many cannot afford it and are forced to drink unsafe water.
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The argument is made through a series of interviews with experts in their respective fields as well as real life stories of countries water being privatized and the violent protests against them. Hearing the stories of these protests organized against corporations that come in and buy the water in a country definitely gives the film emotional appeal. While the government of that country may be getting a small financial benefit the people are now forced to pay outrageous prices for water.
What sustainability problem does the film draw out?
The sustainability problem the film draws out is the issue of universal, clean water and the reasons why we don’t have it. It starts right in local homes and farms which pollute otherwise clean water with runoff. The issue grows larger when cities are designed with no way for the groundwater to replenish itself in an area covered in asphalt and concrete. In many areas the groundwater is being pumped out of the ground at up to fifteen times the rate it can be replaced. Water has become so expensive that in certain countries, like Kenya for example, it is less expensive to buy Coca-Cola. The municipal water supply in Kenya is actually Dasani water which is a product of Coca-Cola. Another issue brought up is damns and their impact on the quality of water. Damns hold water which causes it to heat up, which in turns kills the nutrients in the water and lowers the oxygen content. Practices such as these decrease the quality of water in rivers around the world when rivers are really the lifeblood and arteries of the water supply. Another example is the Aral sea which has been almost completely dried up because of the amount of water that has been pumped out of it for agriculture.
What parts of the film do you find more persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film I found most compelling was the discussion about the privatization of water in developing countries. There were claims made in the movie that soon everything in the world will be privatized and commoditized. Third world countries are often pressured into selling the rights to the water in their country. This is usually to one of three large corporations such as Suez. These companies will then come in and regulate their water supply and charge them for the use of their own water at very high rates. In some areas they have even made it illegal to collect rain water. Hearing the way that citizens in areas such as Bolivia reacted to the privatization of water was eye opening. They had violent protests where individuals lost their lives just to get back their rights to their own water. One of the more interesting terms that was brought up was a slap suit. A slap suit is when someone is sued on ridiculous terms because the prosecutor doesn’t care if they lose. Slap suits are used as a deterrent to activism.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not convinced by the segment about desalination as an alternative to solve the problem. Desalination requires more energy which leads to a whole separate issue of our global energy use. Also there needs to be efforts made to replenish the ground water instead as they highlighted this as a large issue. They did present solutions that target this but the talk about desalination didn’t convince me it was a good solution.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film best addresses those who take water for granted because they have it available to them every day. It is meant to inform them of the severity of the diminishing water supply and the corporate greed through privatization of water.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
What would have added to this documentary to enhance its environmental educational value would have been more scientific evidence to predict the real future of the world’s water supply. There was a good amount of examples and stories of the privatization of water and the protests against them but it would have been nice to see more the environmental side. For example, comparing water usage in the US versus other countries and what that water actually goes to, or the real effects of the concrete cities we have created.
What kinds of actions and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggests corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggests that individuals gain knowledge about what water shed they are in and make sure that it not privately owned. A good example was given of someone that is making a difference and that is Ryan’s Well. He raises money to install wells and pumps in third world countries to provide clean drinking water to local villages. Another thing that individuals can do is to not support the large water corporations that have privatized water. This can be done by not buying products from them such as bottled water.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
After watching this film it made we want to look more into what Ryan’s Well is doing now. What I found was that they have now been around for ten years and have provided wells to numerous villages in third world countries. On the website it says that 2.5 billion people do not have access to adequate sanitization facilities. Another thing I looked up was what watershed Troy is located in. We are in the upper Hudson River watershed. According to the Department of Environmental Conservation in rivers about 46% of the water is in “good” condition while in lakes only 7% is considered “good.”
October 13, 2011
Blue Gold
Word Count: 1116
Title: Blue Gold
Director: Sam Bozzo
Released: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that the amount of fresh water on the planet is decreasing but at the same time the global demand is increasing. This is due to things like population growth, larger industry, landscapes not designed for water conservation, and pollution. The other issue brought out is the control that large corporations have over the water supply. In some cases corporations have bought the rights to all the water in certain countries. They make water so expensive through meters and other means that many cannot afford it and are forced to drink unsafe water.
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The argument is made through a series of interviews with experts in their respective fields as well as real life stories of countries water being privatized and the violent protests against them. Hearing the stories of these protests organized against corporations that come in and buy the water in a country definitely gives the film emotional appeal. While the government of that country may be getting a small financial benefit the people are now forced to pay outrageous prices for water.
What sustainability problem does the film draw out?
The sustainability problem the film draws out is the issue of universal, clean water and the reasons why we don’t have it. It starts right in local homes and farms which pollute otherwise clean water with runoff. The issue grows larger when cities are designed with no way for the groundwater to replenish itself in an area covered in asphalt and concrete. In many areas the groundwater is being pumped out of the ground at up to fifteen times the rate it can be replaced. Water has become so expensive that in certain countries, like Kenya for example, it is less expensive to buy Coca-Cola. The municipal water supply in Kenya is actually Dasani water which is a product of Coca-Cola. Another issue brought up is damns and their impact on the quality of water. Damns hold water which causes it to heat up, which in turns kills the nutrients in the water and lowers the oxygen content. Practices such as these decrease the quality of water in rivers around the world when rivers are really the lifeblood and arteries of the water supply. Another example is the Aral sea which has been almost completely dried up because of the amount of water that has been pumped out of it for agriculture.
What parts of the film do you find more persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film I found most compelling was the discussion about the privatization of water in developing countries. There were claims made in the movie that soon everything in the world will be privatized and commoditized. Third world countries are often pressured into selling the rights to the water in their country. This is usually to one of three large corporations such as Suez. These companies will then come in and regulate their water supply and charge them for the use of their own water at very high rates. In some areas they have even made it illegal to collect rain water. Hearing the way that citizens in areas such as Bolivia reacted to the privatization of water was eye opening. They had violent protests where individuals lost their lives just to get back their rights to their own water. One of the more interesting terms that was brought up was a slap suit. A slap suit is when someone is sued on ridiculous terms because the prosecutor doesn’t care if they lose. Slap suits are used as a deterrent to activism.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not convinced by the segment about desalination as an alternative to solve the problem. Desalination requires more energy which leads to a whole separate issue of our global energy use. Also there needs to be efforts made to replenish the ground water instead as they highlighted this as a large issue. They did present solutions that target this but the talk about desalination didn’t convince me it was a good solution.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film best addresses those who take water for granted because they have it available to them every day. It is meant to inform them of the severity of the diminishing water supply and the corporate greed through privatization of water.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
What would have added to this documentary to enhance its environmental educational value would have been more scientific evidence to predict the real future of the world’s water supply. There was a good amount of examples and stories of the privatization of water and the protests against them but it would have been nice to see more the environmental side. For example, comparing water usage in the US versus other countries and what that water actually goes to, or the real effects of the concrete cities we have created.
What kinds of actions and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggests corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggests that individuals gain knowledge about what water shed they are in and make sure that it not privately owned. A good example was given of someone that is making a difference and that is Ryan’s Well. He raises money to install wells and pumps in third world countries to provide clean drinking water to local villages. Another thing that individuals can do is to not support the large water corporations that have privatized water. This can be done by not buying products from them such as bottled water.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
After watching this film it made we want to look more into what Ryan’s Well is doing now. What I found was that they have now been around for ten years and have provided wells to numerous villages in third world countries. On the website it says that 2.5 billion people do not have access to adequate sanitization facilities. Another thing I looked up was what watershed Troy is located in. We are in the upper Hudson River watershed. According to the Department of Environmental Conservation in rivers about 46% of the water is in “good” condition while in lakes only 7% is considered “good.”
References
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/48019.html
http://www.ryanswell.ca/